Rorate Caeli

"Conservative" cardinal once again embraces homosexuality

From the FSSPX:

Cardinal Schönborn’s leniency towards a gay [sic] church member
The latest decision of Cardinal Schönborn, who opened a parish council to one living in a public homosexual partnership, has brought forward the way the Catholic Church needs to address the problem of homosexuality.

I. The facts
Cardinal Schönborn is again on the news regarding his call on the Church to "give more consideration to the quality" of homosexual relationships. In 2006 his Vienna Cathedral saw the blessing given to unmarried couples on Valentine’s day, including homosexual partners. Fr. Faber, the rector of St. Stephan’s cathedral, expressed his regret that: "Today there is no possibility in the Church to bless a union of people with homosexual feelings." The priest explicitly welcomed "people with homosexual inclinations to receive a blessing for their longing for love."

Cardinal Schönborn made international headlines when he overruled a priest in his diocese who had barred a man named Florian Stangl from joining parish council.[1] Fr. Gerhard Swierzek reportedly told Stangl the night before the election that the young man’s candidacy was not possible according to Church Law since he was publicly living a life contrary to Biblical values. Fr. Swierzek had also asked Stangl to refrain from receiving Communion, leading the young man to remark that he feels the priest has "discriminated against" him. Some parishioners told reporters that if their choice of Stangl was not honored, they were prepared to provoke an uprising. 

Before the cardinal stepped in, the Archdiocese of Vienna had released a statement appearing to support the priest,[2] and affirming: "The magisterium of the Church has spoken unambiguously against homosexual civil unions." After a personal meeting with Stangl, the cardinal praised his "devout attitude, his modesty, and his lived readiness to serve." He concluded:

There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life. 

II. The problems with Vienna 

This attitude of the Cardinal of Vienna shows problems on two accounts.

  1. On the subject of homosexuality, he has allowed several times declarations and gestures giving approval to unrepentant public sinners, which can only be interpreted as encouraging the deviant behavior. Also, for a Prince of the Church to be favorable to civil legislative protection to gay partnership is to give rights to error and vice, and it is a slap on the face of those faithful to proper ecclesiastical and civil laws of marriage.

  1. On the subject of teaching authority, first of all, there is at the grassroots the revolutionary attitude of the laymen who, in case their plea was not granted, were prepared to take action against their local priest who was simply applying Church law. Then, there is the contradictory statement from the Archdiocese, firstly supporting its priest and Church law and then going for his opponent against its priest and Church law. Lastly, we have a cardinal who is squarely contradicting Church teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Church (to the writing of which Cardinal Schönborn has actively participated) regarding homosexual practices as "sins gravely contrary to chastity." Yet, now he is even advocating the legal protection of gay unions.

III. How has the Church dealt with homosexuals? 

The attitude of the Church towards homosexuals follows the general attitude. She has always taken towards sinners, which looks at them on three sides: the soul, the sin, the scandal of others. 

Hate the sin, but the love the sinner... 

Before continuing here, we must first make the distinction between an inclination towards homosexuality (i.e., a temptation - which is not sinful) and the commission of actual homosexual sins by thought, word or deed. On this question, the Congregation for the Faith wrote a document which we quote extensively:[3] 

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered". This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition. 

The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered" and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity."

It is noteworthy that the CDF never makes a reference to the Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality - which often even more explicit than those found in the New Testament.

Certainly the example in Genesis - when God Himself destroyed Sodom (and thus the name of the sin - "sodomy") and Gomorrah - is proof enough that the grave sin of homosexuality is against the natural law. Thus only one blind to common sense and truth can ignore this reality, as well as that carnal union (between a man and woman) is ordained to the begetting of life, and that the sexes complement each other for this sublime purpose. 

The homosexual behavior is far from being "gay". Why is it that homosexual cohabitation lasts an average of 18 months in Holland, including also eight other partners?[4] Why is that homosexuals are suicidal risks 14 times more than others?[5] What are the consequences of the sexual liberations except the multiplication of sexual aggressions: pedophilia, rapes and murders related to sexual deviances? Happiness, which everyone seeks, will not be found in a materialist and carnal behavior. Carnal love and spiritual love are intimately united and true love is reciprocal and fecund. 

The origin of such deviance is unknown, but there is little doubt that it has greatly grown out of the sexual liberation, the endemic use of pornography, and the destruction of parental, especially paternal authority. Yet, part of the problem is that the very "recompense which was due to their error" (Rom 1:27), the plague of AIDS, has been used by the powerful gay lobby to further their cause. 

Love the sinner 

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with civility, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358). 

According to Christian morality, if the sin is private, that is known to few discrete persons and has no ramification or scandal for the city at large, the matter can be taken care of privately. The Church has means of pardoning such persons and of absolving them from their sins, however serious, as long as the subject is sorry for them and has the firm purpose of amendment. That is what one Catholic present at the Vienna cathedral ‘blessing’ of the homosexuals ‘couples’ on St. Valentine’s day retorted: "Yes, the Church offers them something: confession and absolution for their sins." 

Protect the people from the plague of such sins since they threaten society at large 

If the sin is public or worse, turns into a de facto cohabitation, then the problem becomes public and this behavior needs to be confined to avoid further spreading the plague on a social scale. This is what the Congregation of the Faith said clearly in 2003: 

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defenses and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.  

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. 

It should not be forgotten that there is always "a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992].[6] 

IV. The remedy to the present peril 

In fact history shows that rise of homosexuality has always had profound ties with heresies and Gnosticism. We speak here of a gnostic sexuality, as the Cathars of Southern France, which rejects the mystery of the Incarnation and the work of procreation commanded by God: "Increase and multiply." 

Unfortunately, the latest declaration of Cardinal Vincenzo Paglia, the Vatican’s president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, is leading the Church towards a slippery road. On February 5, 2013, he speaks of the need of juridical recognition of "homosexual couples" and wishes to ban those countries which still hold homosexuality as a crime. This is grounded on "the dignity of all the sons of God. An untouchable dignity. All men are equal since they are the sign of God. In about twenty countries, homosexuality is a crime. I wish that we open the fight against this."[7] 

We can only advise Pope Francis to invite Cardinal Paglia to Fatima to pray at the feet of Our Lady of the Rosary. He should command him to become a missionary like St. Dominic. To safeguard the families, the measure he needs to take is to preach the Rosary against the neo-gnostic heresy which condemns life and marriage. It is certain that the meditation on the Incarnation and the Immaculate Virgin are the best antidote to the scourge of the homosexual lobbies.


4 Statistic given by the Family Research Council in "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples," April 2, 2004.
Idem "Considerations…".


Nancy Danielson said...

While temptations are not sinful, if we desire not to overcome our disordered inclinations so that we are not led into temptation, we are, in fact, sinning.

Every act that is Good is ordered to Love. Men and women are designed in such a way that same sex sexual acts will always demean the inherent personal and relational inherent essence of the human person, and thus same-sex sexual acts can never be acts of Love.

God did not order us according to sexual inclination or preference as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, polysexual, transexual..., as that would be in direct violation of God's own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery and thus such terms are not and can never be part of The Language of Love, The Word of God.

If it is true that Pope Francis condoned same-sex sexual unions and thus same-sex sexual acts while a Cardinal in Argentina, we have a serious problem, as we have a pope who is not in communion with The Catholic Church.

David O'Neill said...

I think we must make a distinction here between same sex 'marriage' which I deplore and same sex 'civil partnerships' which I applaud. Let me be clear in that I do not condone a PHYSICAL/SEXUAL partnership but rather a partnership (which could equally apply to siblings of either sex) to give legal protection in case of death where the wealthier partner wishes his/her partner to have legal rights to property etc. Referring to Cardinal Schonbron, I agree with you that he is wrong in championing the cause of the man who is in an openly homosexual (please not 'gay') relationship. Many in the USA are (rightly) being refused Communion in such a situation.

jvc said...

One of Chris West's biggest backers. Couldn't have a more appropriate endorsement.

Adfero said...

David this is the same naive logic homos used 10 years ago. They said all they wanted was access to each other at a hospital, etc. they said they'd never go for phony marriage if we just gave them partnerships. We see how they keep their word.

fizz wizz said...

This is shocking stuff, that any priest never mind a cardinal\archbishop should confirm people in intrinsic evil. It is this lack of doctrinal discipline that papal authority needs to address, this is part of the mandate to confirm the faith. At this time we need a soldier pope who won't take fright.

Nancy Danielson said...

We are all sinners. It is on thing to sin, separate ourselves from The Word of God, repent, serve our Penance, and restore our relationship with God through God's Grace and Mercy, it is something totally different to deny a sin is a sin.

To deny an element of The Deposit of Faith, is to separate oneself from The Word of God. (Catholic Canon 750)

We, who are Catholic, worship The God of Salvation, Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, become transformed through The Word of God, our Savior, Jesus The Christ, and sin no more.

Jacobi said...

Love the sinner while hating the sin. Yes.

But sex, outside of the lawful marriage between a man and a woman is sinful, and gravely so. Homosexual sex is disordered as well as gravely sinful. No one who publicly, or is otherwise known to be such situations, should hold any position in the Church, such as on a parish council.

Priests, should uphold this, as Fr Swiezek has done, and should be publicly supported in doing so. Prelates should clearly and publicly uphold this.

If they do not then they are gravely in error and the Pope should hold them publicly to account

S armaticus said...

Greetings NC and Faithful,
My first post on this website. I can honestly say it is a pleasure to have found you.
So here goes. As to the topic of the post at hand, what can you say. Looks like Western civilization has come full circle… back to Rome circa 300AD. And of all the people that should know better, don't. What on earth are they teaching in the seminaries these days?
As to the Traditional Catholic movement, it's high time. Love the idea of working for the good of the one true Faith across the great divide.
As for the SSPX, hats off to them. I pray that they stay outside the post councilor Church. It's an opinion that I came to after spending a considerable amount of time familiarizing myself with the subject matter. (OK, about two weeks - but they were an intense two weeks.) A real life, modern day David and Goliath story. Reading the communications that went back and forth between the Holy See and Menzingen was a true eye opener. BTW, I am amazed by how well such a "bad hand" can be played. Bravo Menzingen. Simply fascinating!
And I've seen the +Williamson criticism clip of the negotiations, and I think the good bishop in this instance is not correct. The SSPX is right to be trying to reconcile with Rome, but the Dogma issue has to be resolved as a pre-condition. And sad to say, we know that ain't gonna happen. A real life Sisyfusian task, being played out before our very eyes. But in all fairness to the good bishop, he has an extraordinary grasp of and insight into the true nature of what ails the Church of Christ post VII and is absolutely correct when he says that VII in fact created a new religion.
I also think it is a fair and balanced assessment to state that the only reason the Ecclesia Dei commission was established was to draw the faithful away from the SSPX and back into the fold. But what I think is happening is that due the SSPX hold out for this long, the FSSP (LTM) has morphed into a fifth column inside the post VII Church (through no fault of its own) and is making large inroads into the N.O. space. And the longer the SSPX holds out, the worse it will get for the NO types. This would explain +De Noia writing letters to individual SSPX members in an act of utter desperation. No wonder they say that the Lord works in mysterious ways.
There you have it. Looks like I have "stood up, buckled up and shuffled to the door" and the air has just hit my face. I'm jumping into a battle as old as time itself. A fight between good and evil. And it's also the most important battle know to man, the battle for the eternal life of his soul.
Our Lady of Victory, pray for us.
One and all.

Edward said...

Why is gay special, why can't the rest of us have our sin's "approved"

Beefy Levinson said...

What is the deal with his Eminence? What I mean is, he was once touted in neoconservative circles as a solid man in the mold of his old professor Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI. Did he change or has he always governed like this?

Reginald said...


quote: Why is gay special, why can't the rest of us have our sin's "approved"

Well said! Why should I not defraud my workers of their wages?

Aged parent said...

I would only add a caution to this discussion, and that would be to not airily dismiss a "temptation" to a vice as not sinful, only because there is a very fine, delicate line between sinning by thought and a quick, passing temptation. This is something for a competent moral theologian to be discussing, of course, not me.

The danger is that if we keep harping on the fact that a mere temptation is not sinful in itself it could lead a weak person to think longer about such a temptation which then borders on a sin by thought. It's a knotty problem but one which needs clarification especially in these days when some speak of "same sex attraction" as if it were nothing more grave than a sinus infection.

Johannes de Silentio said...

Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried turns out to have been right when, years ago he said that, "To the extent it’s something other than a collection of benefits, calling it ‘marriage’ represents a sign of society’s approval, society’s ‘coming to the party’ in celebration of the union.”

Same-sex couples can already marry in a private ceremony without the state's blessing. But that, finally, is exactly what they seek: society's ratification of their own sexual deviancy.

Edward More said...

I hope David O'Oneill is not serious about his approval of "civil partnerships". Good grief. That's like approving heterosexual cohabitation, only several times worse in the case of same sex cohabitation. Are we living through the times Our Lord predicted in Sacred Scripture? "But do you think that when the Son of Man comes he will find the faith on earth?" The answer to the question posed by Our Lord is clearly YES, as He promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against his mystical body, but the question clearly has the implication that at a certain moment in history (which I believe to be right now) the church will be much reduced in number, so much so, that one could say that Our Lord would not find the faith on earth. God help us all in this time of calamity and apostasy. Our Lady of the Pilar, pray for us poor sinners!!

Archimandrite Gregory said...

I am not sure it is accurate to denote the Pope as condoning same sex unions. Rather, I believe that he recognizes that these civil unions will be taking place in spite of what we teach about them. My guess is that he would have priests administer the Sacrament of matrimony alone without signing any government document. I plan on having people I marry go to the magistrate the day before the Sacrament and have a civil ceremony. I will no longer act as a minister of the gospel, meaning acting as an agent of the state. this does not mean I approve of same sex marriages; rather I have no control over what the government may choose to do.

Montfort said...

No surprise at all - just consider Fr. Matthew Despard and the Scottish crisis.

Anchorite said...

Card. Schoenborn is slightly more progressive than was/is Bergoglio. And maybe more spineless. What's new.

UnamSanctam said...

Apparently he shies away from any conflict. Rorate Caeli reported on that aspect via an Argentinian reader within a few days of his election.

James T said...

Did the Cardinal, who described the homosexual man as "devout attitude, his modesty, and his lived readiness to serve", ever consider that the man met his partner in the public bathroom of a highway rest area or perhaps a bathhouse?

Malta said...

My best friend is gay; but I also have other 'straight' friends who commit sodomy and use birth control (condoms and abortifacient pills).

What's worse, abortion or sodomy?

And I know friends who have committed some of the other seven sins that Cry out to Heaven for Vengeance.

But when you have balloon-tossing Cardinal almost endorsing sin, something is seriously wrong in the Church!

Malta said...

I should have mentioned that part and parcel is his strange affection for the Cult named Medjugorje.

Malta said...

One last thing: I'm an extremely tolerant person even though I go to FSSPX masses.

But does anyone realize the Sacramental significance of marriage anymore?

The priest presides over it, but the sacrament is purely between a man and a woman in communion with the Church. I know Cardinal balloon-boy knows this, but he is fooling his flock by his frivolous foolhardy words!

ProLIFEmommy said...

First time commenting & also, thankful to God for having found this blog!!!
Hmmmm??? Could the Cardinal be part of the HUGE homosexual underground that has recently been reported on: The "Lavender mafia?" There is SO much confusion surrounding the topic of homosexuality... (and we all know who the Father of confusion is....)
David O'Neill's comment reflects that confusion, as does the recent decision made by
Jesuit President, Fr. Salmon, of McQuaid High School, in NY, who "thoughtfully" rationalized "nothing wrong" with inviting 2 gay teenage boys to come to the prom AS A "COUPLE" this upcoming spring.
Cardinal Dolan has done SQUAT to stop this madness. Dr. Peters, a Canon Lawyer, had a thoughtful response to Fr. Salmon's letter
David. I have a cousin who is attracted to persons of the opposite sex, and he is VEHEMENTLY against gay marriage. He had a "partner" who died of cancer, and while he was hospitalized, had NO problems with visiting him nor did he experience any legal problems. They owned a home together, cars, home furnishings, a bank account, etc.etc..
He flat out admits: it's all about being "accepted" and they will not stop pushing that agenda until they are accepted. Gay "Marriage" is merely a means to that end.
The Church needs to fill in the gaps: it's not JUST about homosexual marriage. The Church needs to clarify---so that the average person can understand it-- that homosexual behavior is not limited to JUST the sexual act. "Dating," for example, is wrong because it is romantic in nature. Seminarians have rules for dating... Pretty interesting, can be read here:

Common Sense said...

Interesting point Malta.As sick as it is, I did in fact meet 'straight' males, who even boasted about their depravity in relation to their female spouses. Any sexual deviation if not checked, will end up in horrendous depravity. In fact, any deviation in serious matters spells tragedy for those at the recieving end.

Assisi said...

Scripture suggests sodomites are given to burn with lust for one another because "they worship the creature more than The Creator.." When sodomy, before professional psychology caved under political pressure in 1973, was properly viewed as a mental illness due to a disorder owing to poor (or non-existent) same-sex parenting (initial sodomite experiences often suggest a perverted father/son, mother/daughter bent), a psycho-sexual grooming, recruitment, and molestation that permanently scars a soul with a proclivity to be drawn into the lifestyle, and/or the hedonism, spoken of above, that views everything, using the present decadent mind-set, adored in the culture in it's voracious appetite for pornography, as a means for sexual gratification.

Bergoglio has already allowed two men to be married in his Buenos Aries Basillica (one man had himself surgically mutilated, and with estrogen-therapy, looked the part, but they knew and cared not that these souls were born men).

Bergoglio later portrayed himself as very much the martyr and hero, for baptizing the much publicized in-vitro child of this monstrous charicature of a family, (a very wealthy one as well) that a parish priest had refused to.

Bergoglio's best friend in the world, and first one he called when elected Pope, is a famous Argentian Rabbi, he's feted several times in Catholic institutions, and to whom, like everyone but Tradition-minded Faithful, has either kissed the feet of or solemnly dropped to his knees and implored the blessings of, supports same-sex unions. Bergoglio's second call was to the current and Chief Rabbi of Rome (an unabashed Freemason as well) who believes similarly.

Sconborm, who JP 2, entusted the writing of the current CCC to, may just be Bergoglio's front mam before a new regime's agenda.

We may be entering into a new time of a type of "Desecrating Sacrilege" presaged by Daniel, spoken of by The Lord, and affirmed by The Apocalypse.

One also has to wonder why THE MOST HIGH would give the most famous FRANCIS of all time, punctuated by his deathbed, the prophecy of a "Destroyer Pope.." as his last words to his brothers.

Our Lady of Lasallette, Fatima, and Akita, Queen of all Patriarchs, Queen of all Apostles, Queen of Mercy, pray for us, who have recourse to thee, and do not have recourse to thee, especially those most in need of Thy Mercy..


Wormwood said...

Good on you, S armaticus. Welcome to the trenches!

UnamSanctam said...


There are four sins, not seven, that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and they are the same in both Western and Eastern Churches, including the Orthodox.

* Murder
* Sodomy
* Depriving a worker of his due wages
* Not helping widows and orphans.

Rorate Caeli, please continue with this line of investigation and report. That the sodomites have infiltrated the priesthood is the most direct assault by hell on the Catholic Church. It started in the 1950's, has reached epidemic proportions and the rage and viciousness of these people knows no bounds. You will be viciously attacked by email and by any other method they can find; you will be villified, it will be personal, very nasty and with no boundaries to it. Catholic posters on this subject have been rounded on, kicked off blogs, and all too often it is your modern secularised and protestantised "Catholic" who is their greatest supporter.

Which tells you how far the rot has gone.

I personally have no hope (in the human sense) left that the mainstream Church can be saved. The rot has gone on for too long and even the weight-bearing beams of dogma and doctrine are now regularly under attack from within the Church.

Sodomite clergy are the devil's storm-troopers, as I have said before and the mainstream Church is the British 5th Army a day into the attack on March 21st 1917. Reeling back on all fronts.

So courage, steadiness, fortitude and forwards.

Benedict Carter

fizz wizz said...

It seems to be ever more clear that the acceptance of homosexual activity as normal and worthy of celebration will be the next great watershed issue. A great many of the clergy have have already caved even if only tacitly. Such acceptance is in fact a massive apostasy because when this is accepted all other Catholic doctrine comes crashing down and we will be left with a religious and moral wasteland.

Long-Skirts said...

This poem was written for the innocent victims in Boston, the innocent victims of abortion and about the prelates (i.e.Card. Schoenborn) who are scandalizing innocent souls in the Faith...

...there is no peace to men who are not of good will - in and out of the Church.


Down the street
In Chapel small
Votive candles
Lit for all.

A golden bell,
A golden ring,
Chosen hands
Lift Christ the King.

"Weep not for Me
But for your child.
Their faith's gone cold
They've been beguiled."

But anointed hands
Privileged so -
Still touch His
Sacred Body's glow

Giving knowledge
Of salvation -
Remit their sins
In every nation.

These My sons
In whom I'm pleased
The world does hate
So Satan-seized.

To men of good will
There...true peace,
If they are not -
All grace will cease.

Good will to men...
Who innocent, maim?
At the sunrised-Sacrifice
Priest defies in His Name!

Malta said...


Even though I'm over 40, I look much younger. I have been hit on by both priests and presbyterians. And I am sick of it!

Malta said...

I've been told I'm "Hollywood handsome"; but that is a blessing and a curse; I want to corn-feed my daughters to be fat and happy, like Chesterson!

Sodomites pervade the Church; until we get these Vatican II vermin out of it, we are doomed as a religious institution.

Ligusticus said...

Most relevant :

Ligusticus said...

By the way -- Here's the latest Weigel...

"..Weigel proposes a reorganisation of the college of cardinal-electors on a geographic and demographic basis, reducing it to a maximum of 144 members (there are 120 of them today). The number 144 is a “biblical” one: 12 tribes times 12 apostles."

Assisi said...

I live in a diocese that's had to change the name of the seminary here, twice, the past 20 years, because of The Wanderer's reporting and E. Michael Jones' writing, that revealed the absolute bachhanalian sodomite sub-culture there.

We have area priests mentioned regularly in the sodomite-priest blog, "Hear Our Voices". The diocese is over-run which brings me to the story of a personal- trainer friend of mine, new to the area, that got a job, unbeknownst to him, in the lavender part of town.

He is also studying to be a Russian Orthodox priest, so when he would have clients come in and tell him that they "worked for the diocese" he was excited thinking he would get into the same kind of spirited give-n-take we have. This was until he realized that the expression was code for a sodomite-priest who didn't want to be identified as getting "training advice" in a certain part of town.

I remember my friend telling me that when priests admiited they were so, not one was interested in sharing advice with an aspiring seminarian, or even discussing apologetics (as we are prone to do, respectfully). The only "ecumenical" apologetics argument Brian still continues to win is "..but all your priests are homos" which leads to the supposed superiority of married Russian Clergy yada-yada, but I digress..

It's already a mess. Remember, the rumor (Michael was that the biggest part of the problem for Benedict,the one he didn't have the health or energy enough to confront, was NOT the ADMINISTRATIONAL style of the curia, but THE SODOMITE and HOMOPHILE mafia running it.

Our Lady of Lasallette said the spirit of "asmodeus" (demon associated with lust) would over-run the Holy Orders of The Church.

It is not possible for me anymore to listen to a lispy-priest without feeling angry or ill.

Pray and fast and pray and fast and pray and fast!

Viva Christo Rey!!!

Common Sense said...

Is there any wander as to why SSPX is callumniated,ostricised and kept out from from the mainstream? It's the only solidly organized priestly body within the church. Look at the love and hatred it generates. Devil knows his own, that's why the rage against the SSPX. This acronym of this unique and truely catholic priestly society strikes horror into the rotten harts. Don't waist your time with the mainstream, wheather Novus Ordo or politics. Only we trads can help ourself and in process the others as well. May Our Devine Master, Lord Jesus Christ bless SSPX and advance the noble course of our epic struggle.

UnamSanctam said...

Common Sense:

Amen to every word of that.

Assisi said...

We must not forget the struggle though, brothers. We must account of our struggle, against evil, to The Most High.

We must not forget Our Lady's tears at Lasallete and other approved places.

The concilliar popes, have been, for the most part, an embarassment. Still Paul VI gave us Humanae Vitae, JP 2, the Divine Mercy devotion, and Benedict tried to address, at least, the liturgical depravity of the last five decades. If Benedict had just been 20 years younger the struggle might've ended in his papacy.

All of the salient arguments are on the side of Tradition, but there is a Pope, of the sort of slippery, spineless French monarch St. Joan of Arc tried, unsuccessfully, to inspire most times? No doubt.

The problem with the concilliarists is that they ADORE the current occupant of the papacy, confusing the reverence for the Office, with a quasi-divinization of it's holder.

The problem with some aspects of Tradition is that everyone becomes their own pope.

The truth is that John XXIII disobeyed Our Lady of Fatima, in 1960, and we've been reaping the whirlwind ever since. Paul VI, in over his head, was duped by all the neo-modernists, including Freemason Bugnini, and then went into a spastic, spiritual seizure, at the end of his papacy, despairing that some how "thru some fizzure, the smoke of satan had entered The Church.." (that "fizzure" was the "open window" his predecessor let evey filthy thing into The Church from). JP 2, seeing himself as a new Paul for a new theology, refused to address the manifest discipline problems in the Church. He may be the worst Pope ever in that regard. He may have been afraid to deal with the Vatican make-over, that was required, for fear of meeting the untimely end of his predecessor. The assasination attempt of JP 2, and Our Lady of Fatima mercifully attending to him, should have been a wake-up call, but instead only served to make him a would-be martyr of his own failings. Benedict was left a mess by JP 2, but had been trying for 20 years to "reform the reform", but finally his age, and the masonic-cabal that surrounded him, was too much.

That said, until we find out there was some canon irregularity for sure, Francis is Pope.

Being Pope only guarantees that as chief teacher of The Faith, in his official office as Peter, he will never teach a dogma or doctrine, in that official capacity, that is contrary to Faith and Morals.

The Pope can fail like Liberius, Honararius, Alexander VI, and most of the concilliar popes, most of the time, but none of those souls ever declared, with the power of The Petrine Office, an error.

Have some of the papal opinions and practices been satanic as Our Lord describes Peter's actions in the Gospel? Has the pope sometimes sought the approval of a small intelligentsia, at the expense of The Faithful, as St. Paul admonishes Peter for in Acts? Has Peter been delinquent, at times, in feeding and protecting the lambs? Absolutely!

So the charism of The Petrine Office is a gift of The Holy Spirit, saying nothing about the person occupying the Seat. "Your Holiness" isn't so much a title, but a prayer.

So while "Peter" may be a disgrace (still the Office can change souls for the better), he's still Peter.

Let's not act like the effeminate, sophist cowards destroying The Church, but consider it an honor to die as St. Joan of Arc did, confronting the modernist Judas.

Leo XIII once said, "A Catholic is born for combat."

Yes, we are!

Viva Christo Rey!!!

LeonG said...

"....the only reason the Ecclesia Dei commission was established was to draw the faithful away from the SSPX and back into the fold."

Precisely! It did not work either. The SSPX serves a vital function that increasingly educated politically Catholics understand only too well now. The NO and the Indult Societies who serve the former as well uncritically, are no longer able to pretend that The Vatican Councils are a work of The Holy Ghost because they patently just are not. Division belongs to the devil and all his works - Our Blessed Lord stated clearly that only those who gather with Him can attain the Heavenly state.

Common Sense said...

Absolutely correct, LeonG! SSPX not only provides vital traditional nourishment for the faithfull, but enevitably stimulates social and political awareness. The SSPX strenth isn't in numbers, but in the idea it represents.

ka said...

Married priests will have less time for their priesthood.
There will be the problem of scandal when their marriages break down. They will need bigger stipends to support a family and educate their children. Who wants to contribute extra money for this when there is already pressure on funds for the payouts associated with clerical abuse? Married priests will fix nothing and will make only more problems!